Jeremy Bamber - Simon McKay to speak about case at Cardiff Law School

[John]

Anyone from here travelling to wales for the event?

It would have been an awesome opportunity to confront Simon McKay and challenge him in public so I was all set to travel to Cardiff but there are no late flights back which would require an overnight stay and that creates a problem for me at the moment.  We shall see though as I may be able to work something out before Monday.

[Andrea]

There is a thread on blue about the hitman, they think jm made it all up. I was underthe impression that it was Bamber himself who told her he hired a hitman? She repeatedly said to him '£2000 for five lives'. of course we know there was no hitman, it was just JB trying to lessen his involvment in the slayings.

[John]

It seems that Mr McKay is playing the unsafe conviction card as he is unable to prove it is a wrongful conviction.  This is the old favourite among lawyers and barristers when all they have to do is put a certain amount of doubt in the minds of the appeal court judges.  I personally find this quite reprehensible.

[huggy]

It seems that Mr McKay is playing the unsafe conviction card as he is unable to prove it is a wrongful conviction.  This is the old favourite among lawyers and barristers when all they have to do is put a certain amount of doubt in the minds of the appeal court judges.  I personally find this quite reprehensible.

McKay hasnt got a leg to stand on when it comes to the Bamber case.  The judges have already kicked him into touch which says it all for me.  He probably doesnt even think he is innocent anyway. 

[Mr Justice K]

It seems that Mr McKay is playing the unsafe conviction card as he is unable to prove it is a wrongful conviction.  This is the old favourite among lawyers and barristers when all they have to do is put a certain amount of doubt in the minds of the appeal court judges.  I personally find this quite reprehensible.

To be fair to Mr McKay there is only so much he can do on a pro bono basis.  This case will be costing him more and more time and money the longer he represents Jeremy Bamber, money he can ill-afford to lose.

I do agree however that the only possible light at the end of the tunnel for Mr Bamber is for the Court of Appeal to rule that the conviction is somehow unsafe.  Personally, I don't see this happening irrespective of PII or the other more recent arguments being put forward by his legal team.

It should also be remembered that an unsafe conviction is not a declaration of innocence.  Consequently the appellant would be most unlikely to ever receive compensation.

[John]

There is a multitude of authorities on the internet discussing unsafe and wrongful convictions so I am not going to go into the difference here other than to say the former is not a declaration of innocence but the latter is.

You can have a conviction overturned on the basis that it is unsafe or does not meet the criterion for such convictions.  Convictions have to be beyond a reasonable doubt and if it can be shown that this is not the case then a conviction is deemed unsafe.

Where evidence can be found to prove that someone is totally innocent of a crime then this will result in the conviction being overturned on the basis that it is a wrongful conviction.